"A total of six airplanes will be included in the flight test program, which will conclude in May 2008 with the certification of the airplane followed shortly by the first delivery of a 787 to ANA.
To date, 47 customers worldwide have ordered 677 airplanes worth more than $110 billion at current list prices, making the Dreamliner the most successful commercial airplane launch in history. The first 787 is scheduled to enter passenger service in May 2008."

A lot has changed in that 4 years and a lot has not - c'mon Boeing, the finishing line is finally here...

It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!

This may only be of interest to the super-nerds : having viewed Matt Cawby's (Paine Field Blog) video of RC555's (Cathay Pacific Cargo 747-8F) maiden flight [see: http://kpae.blogspot.com/2011/08/cat...cargo-747-8f-first.html#comments], it looks like ZA101 (l/n 8 - JA801A), the first 787 scheduled for delivery to ANA, was moved yesterday from the "fuel dock" to the western edge of the Boeing Ramp - another sign of progress towards her first flight.

I am very excited, and cannot wait. There are great videos on Twitter, which can be found elsewhere about her unavailing last week. It looks great and she will change flying for ever. The windows are very cool. Congrats to Boeing and ANA, and we are almost finished. Just one last push to the finish line.

Thank you for all answers/comments,

laxboeingman

The opinions I post are mine and not of any organization I am affiliated with.

Rumour had it that this was the last test flight needed but didn't mention it in original post because I wasn't sure. Sounds like that info was correct! Yay!!!! Shame they waited so long to bring it to SLC, but guess we should feel honored we were part of final test itinerary LOL.

Flightblogger has added some interesting additional color to the news article which appeared in ATI on Saturday about certification of the 787, including:

Quote:...On Sunday, ZA102 flew with a plane-load of passengers to put the the aircraft's IFE and environmental control systems to the test, with final F&R ground tests afterward, say program sources, a test for Boeing, not the FAA...

Quoting mdword1959 (Reply 5):it looks like ZA101 (l/n 8 - JA801A), the first 787 scheduled for delivery to ANA, was moved yesterday from the "fuel dock" to the western edge of the Boeing Ramp - another sign of progress towards her first flight.

Any word on when she's due to take to the skies, if she hasn't already?

Some of the resident spotters at MAN were talking about ZB 's 787 deliveries being firmed up to commence first quarter 2013. Can't wait to see the type finally in service with a UK airline, I may even go back to Poland for LOT's first flight too, if that is ahead of the first UK EIS (supposedly should be).

The 787 feels like an awkward child that has caused it's parents a lot of problems and now is finally getting a job and moving out!

Matt Cawby (Paine Field Blog) reports that some ground tests were done Wednesday on ZA101 (l/n 8 - JA801A), the first 787 scheduled for delivery to ANA, engine run fences were also moved to the airplane in the afternoon but there was no engine start as of 5:30 PM (PDT).

Quoting rj777 (Reply 25):I wonder if the certification ceremony will be webcast like the 1st flight was

I'm not sure there is a ceremony...there's a big meeting ("Type board") where they hash out any remaining open items, some paperwork goes back and forth, and the FAA issues the certificate when they're satisfied.

" The 787 will initially be certified up to a 180min ETOPS requirement, allowing the aircraft to fly three hours from a suitable diversion airport, with a 330min certification to follow in early 2012 ahead of delivery to United Airlines for its Houston to Auckland route. ... end of quote.

The New Zealand rules require that the aircraft would have been operated one year at 180-min. before being eligible to be operated at 330-min. I don't know what the FAA says on this. But since both regulators have to approve the operation I would expect that UA will not operate more than 180-min. out of the gate so far as IAH-AKL is concerned unless they have one years experience with the type before starting this route.

There is a ceremony. Attendees include Boeing Execs, Program Engineering Managers, and reps from the FAA and EASA. For a milestone program like the 787, I expect it will include at least Albaugh and the FAA and EASA Directors.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):...there's a big meeting ("Type board") where they hash out any remaining open items, some paperwork goes back and forth, and the FAA issues the certificate when they're satisfied.

The Type Board is for working level folks. The Heavy Breathers go to the Cert Ceremony.

Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

The FAA typically does not require this for established carriers with a history of ETOPS operations.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 30):But since both regulators have to approve the operation I would expect that UA will not operate more than 180-min. out of the gate so far as IAH-AKL is concerned unless they have one years experience with the type before starting this route.

Both regulators don't have to approve, just the one offering the operating certificate for the airline in question.

There will probably only be a large scale "public ceremony" for the actual first delivery to ANA. I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't take place on the parking pad immediately adjacent to the Future of Flight Aviation Center as has been the case for other major first deliveries in recent years, a la the first 777F, etc. (See: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&item=286 )

Future of Flight Aviaition Center adjacent to the Kilo North ramp at PAE (12/2010)

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 32):Both regulators don't have to approve, just the one offering the operating certificate for the airline in question.

Sorry Tom, you are wrong on this one. Both the NZ (to SunriseValley) & Australian (to me) regulators have confirmed that the approval of the regulators on BOTH ends of the route is required for EDTO beyond 180. Presumably because its not ICAO approved.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 32):Both regulators don't have to approve, just the one offering the operating certificate for the airline in question.

An official with the New Zealand regulator who was part of the Aus/ N.Z. EDTO task force told me that both the O and D country regulators must approve. I assume it is possible to clarify this somewhere within the ICAO "paperwork".

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 38):Ah, you have probably fingered that there is no ICAO standard at this time ? Is this so?

Don't know, but can't think of any other reason for the O/D approval required. May be if there is an ICAO standard A & NZ have opted out, I believe this is possible, although I find it hard to believe that either country has done so.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 36):Both the NZ (to SunriseValley) & Australian (to me) regulators have confirmed that the approval of the regulators on BOTH ends of the route is required for EDTO beyond 180.

Interesting...how does that actually work? There are ETOPS180 and ETOPS330 routes between the same two destinations. Assuming that the issuer of the operating certificate for the airline has approved ETOPS330, what authority does the destination regulator have to say that you can't use the ETOPS330 route?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 42):what authority does the destination regulator have to say that you can't use the ETOPS330 route?

If ETOPS 330 is NOT ICAO approved (see Stitch-reply41) then the authority is simply "you cannot enter our airspace on an ETOPS330 route" or " we will not allow you to carry passengers into our airspace over ETOPS330 routes".

Every country has the right to regulate the operation of ALL carriers within its airspace, it's just that most (all?) countries have agreed via the Chicago Convention and other treaties and ICAO agreements that each country will regulate its own carriers world wide. It appears that ETOPS >180 currently falls outside those arrangements, hence the need for approval of both the origin AND destination countries.

It is amazing when you think about it (which few people ever do) that arrangement put in place in 1944 are still working relatively well almost 60 years later. Without them the International Civil Aviation landscape would be vastly different.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 43):If ETOPS 330 is NOT ICAO approved (see Stitch-reply41) then the authority is simply "you cannot enter our airspace on an ETOPS330 route" or " we will not allow you to carry passengers into our airspace over ETOPS330 routes".

Every country has the right to regulate the operation of ALL carriers within its airspace, it's just that most (all?) countries have agreed via the Chicago Convention and other treaties and ICAO agreements that each country will regulate its own carriers world wide. It appears that ETOPS >180 currently falls outside those arrangements, hence the need for approval of both the origin AND destination countries.

What about overflying third countries? Does that third country also need to approve high ETOPS route?
Even better, flight can stay outside of third country airspace, but list their airport as diversion point. Is there any authority of that diversion country over flight plan? That way there will be even more parties involved in it..

I was at the Boeing plant last Friday and the guy showing us around was very excited about the certification. There seems to be an awful lot of these planes sitting these with a look on their faces saying 'let me at it'! I liked the faint whiff of plastic as we overlooked the line.

Sorry for the noob question...what are the typical routes for this plane? Typical distances? I think the guy said that it could do 7-8,000 miles but is that likely?

I am having a hard time believing that Continental wasn't and United isn't aware of the regulatory environs in New Zealand and didn't plan for this in advance of reiterating internally that this was their intended first destination.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 48):I am having a hard time believing that Continental wasn't and United isn't aware of the regulatory environs in New Zealand and didn't plan for this in advance of reiterating internally that this was their intended first destination.

A year slide is a very, very long time.

Their announcement of the route was at least a year before N.Z. promulgated their final rules.